Louise O Neill on rape culture.

hatrickpatrick · 11-01-2017 10:43AM

mzungu wrote: »

It is reciprocated. I have often had a door held open for me and been told to go first etc.

The point is though, girls aren't raised with "gentlemen first" as a *thing*. That's the societal double standards. There's a difference between "hold the door open for people, it's good manners" and "hold the door open for girls, just because they're girls and you're not one".

hatrickpatrick · 11-01-2017 10:48AM

ivytwine wrote: »

Well you could also accurately come to the conclusion that this is because women are the "weaker sex" who need men to protect them. I mean the not hitting girls thing is fair: equally you shouldn't hit boys, but I'm physically tiny and a blow from a big man could feasibly kill me. I do think kids should be taught to not hit anyone, and women hitting men is not ok either.

At the age of three or four there's little difference in strength, boys don't understand the changes that will come later, all they hear is "for some reason, I don't matter as much - it's ok for someone to hit me because I'm a boy, but girls matter more somehow".

Ladies first is going out with the ark I'd say. I think it's literally only ever been said to me ironically.

You're lucky then. Many boys are brought up with it, and a lot of little girls at that immature age get a kick out of taunting lads about those perceived advantages.

It's all very paternalistic in the old sense, the stuff we teach boys. You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship. Molly Brown tried to take practical action was shut down.

Look it's not right. Any of it. Men were often seen as expendable in war, disaster etc, but it's not because they were less important socially: because they were seen as stronger, more capable, stoic, brave, more intellectually rigorous- things women were not seen as being.

The legacy of this which remains should be challenged by good parenting. I was just young enough for the "boys are stupid..." thing and I distinctly remember my mother detesting it- and telling me exactly why it was wrong.

The issue I have is that today, society is very much stamping out the girls being the weaker sex thing, which is good. But it's not stamping out the inequalities pushed on boys as a result. This means that boys are growing up feeling like girls, for some reason, have fewer rules and come first in society. You grow out of it, sure, but depending on your environment growing up it can leave a psychological mark.

I'm sure some of ye know a family in which a brother and sister of the same age would fight as all siblings do, and the brother would always get blamed? I know many such scenarios. It's so deeply ingrained that society simply is blind to it.

Have a read of the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Women_are_wonderful%22_effect

mzungu · 11-01-2017 10:58AM

ivytwine wrote: »

Sinead is an example of that "messy" thing I was getting at. People do often lose patience with her but she is an example of what someone with a long-term condition can actually be like, and unfortunately that can mean self-destructive and not pleasant to be around. Some of the stick she gets though is very cruel and often comes out of the mouth of people who will then turn around and praise Bressie. (Not a criticism of him, but he does fit what maybe some would like to think as a "perfect" mentally-ill person; articulate, sensitive, and above all, not a "mess" in public).

True. Sinead gets mountains of stick, all of it completely unwarranted. I think half of it is people being nasty for the sake of being nasty and the other half is people who don't realise that this is what mental illness actually is. It is a lifetime of ups and downs (mostly downs) and a constant struggle to stay on the straight and narrow. You're right, I think people see celebs on chat shows talking about mental illness and they think "ah sure, they look grand" and assume it is like having a bad case of the flu. It might be better if they drove the message home a bit more about the brutal reality of the situation. From people I have known IRL who had mental illness (and I am quite sure this is the case for others too), some have barely left the house in the past decade or two, relationships with people are non-existent, personal hygiene has suffered, and to a large extent they are detached from their surroundings.

I do support these initiatives in the media towards mental health awareness, but at the same time they don't go far enough.

Widdershins · 11-01-2017 01:13PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Welllllll.... I think that was less a gender thing than Hermione had been bullied by Malfoy for about three years at that point and she just snaps. It's written that it's completely out of character for her and a sign of the stress she's under. Probably wouldn't have been written had the genders had been reversed, but Harry, while he doesn't punch Bellatrix in the face, tries to Cruciatius Curse on her, which in the real world would be the equivalent of using thumbscrews on someone.

.

I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I thought of Malfoy as an equal opportunities little sh1t, to everyone!

I still suspect there's an element of- badass chick thumps unlikeable boy in the gob, *hilarity*! because it's not the first time I've seen it, only the one example I actually clearly remember at this stage. For me it's a theme that I've noticed several times while growing up. The other one clear in my mind was a Facebook post. I don't remember the wording but there was an image of a woman's closed hand with a large jewel topped ring on a finger. It was a joke about punching a man who did something relatively minor and annoying, and leaving the imprint of the ring in his forehead, and the post had thousands of Likes.

ivytwine · 11-01-2017 01:18PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I thought of Malfoy as an equal opportunities little sh1t, to everyone!

I still suspect there's an element of- badass chick thumps unlikeable boy in the gob, *hilarity*! because it's not the first time I've seen it, only the one example I actually clearly remember at this stage.

Oh he is completely but of the three leads he's harshest on Hermione, because she's Muggle born. I think that's an element of it, but in the books it's a little more complex... and many people remember when he got turned into a ferret (by a man) equally as fondly!

Wibbs · 11-01-2017 01:21PM

Ahh… pics allowed. Bliss.

Arne_Saknussem · 11-01-2017 01:29PM

Widdershins wrote: »

chick thumps boy in the gob, *hilarity*!

11-01-2017 01:32PM

ivytwine wrote: »

You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship.

I'd like to see the source for that.

As it stands it's a pretty disgusting lie about people who sacrificed their lives so that their families (and other women and children) would survive.

There was no saving the Titanic. The ship was going down. In contrast to many maritime disasters at least some form of 'women and children first' protocol was followed, even if imperfectly, meaning 74% of women on the ship survived compared to 20% of the men.

I'd like to think that if I surrendered myself to the cold dark Atlantic waters so that others would survive I wouldn't have some anonymous internet poster belittling my sacrifice 100 years later.

Widdershins · 11-01-2017 01:45PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

That's horrible.

pumpkin4life · 11-01-2017 01:48PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

jimgoose · 11-01-2017 01:51PM

Widdershins wrote: »

That's horrible.

It certainly is. If that ad showed a man delivering an open-handed haymaker like that to a woman the world would be aghast, and frankly so would I.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

...

Completely off-topic, but Carl Weathers looks disturbingly like a Ninja Turtle these days. :pac:

midnight city · 11-01-2017 01:55PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

If you see an add like that use their competitor next time. So everyone go to McDonalds next time you fancy some of that type of fast food instead of burger king.

ivytwine · 11-01-2017 02:13PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd like to see the source for that.

As it stands it's a pretty disgusting lie about people who sacrificed their lives so that their families (and other women and children) would survive.

There was no saving the Titanic. The ship was going down. In contrast to many maritime disasters at least some form of 'women and children first' protocol was followed, even if imperfectly, meaning 74% of women on the ship survived compared to 20% of the men.

I'd like to think that if I surrendered myself to the cold dark Atlantic waters so that others would survive I wouldn't have some anonymous internet poster belittling my sacrifice 100 years later.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, and my intention wasn't to belittle anybody involved. I'm trying to address *why* the convention was women and children first, as opposed to, say, children first and then men and women fending for themselves.

Again, why were men seen as more expendable than women.

And it's a fact that the ship was going to sink but the evacuation was far from perfect. They could have saved 1178 people, but they only saved 715. In the course of 2 hrs 40 mins they could have saved more.

Class also had an impact. 91% of first class women survived, 49% of third class women did.

The Rape of Lucretia · 11-01-2017 07:12PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Again, why were men seen as more expendable than women.

They werent seen as more expendable. It was an age when men felt responsible for the weaker, physically and mentally, sex. And also one of some chivalry, where it was the done thing to sacrifice himself, or take his chances, after putting women and children to safety, as they were seen as less able to help themselves.
A different age. A different age.

neonsofa · 11-01-2017 07:27PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The point is though, girls aren't raised with "gentlemen first" as a *thing*. That's the societal double standards. There's a difference between "hold the door open for people, it's good manners" and "hold the door open for girls, just because they're girls and you're not one".

And "age before beauty" is a thing too, allowing the older person through before you, even if they are not elderly and frail. My child would hold open the door for everybody (shes one of those annoying people who makes you do that weird jog to get there quicker cause you're miles away from the door!), all ages and genders, I think it is just a manners thing these days, people either do it and do so for everybody, or they don't and wouldn't go out of their way to do it for a woman.
A guy once told me that the only reason he holds doors open for women is so he can check out their ass on the way in, so it's not always a case of being raised to be a gentleman either!

Bambi985 · 11-01-2017 07:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sure some of ye know a family in which a brother and sister of the same age would fight as all siblings do, and the brother would always get blamed? I know many such scenarios. It's so deeply ingrained that society simply is blind to it.
[/url]

I'd know more families where the son can do no wrong tbh, is mollycoddled by his mammy while the housework and any caring duties are left on his sisters' shoulders and he's the apple of everyone's eye in a general sense.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 11-01-2017 07:38PM

Some really interesting points made in the last few pages.

Take the egs raised of war or maritime disasters. Sure men are bettered suited to fighting on the front line or lowering lifeboats because of their physical superiority to women but their lives are expendable.

Fertile women are more important to the continuation of our race. We're biologically programmed to think this way. As a man I fully accept this reality.

ivytwine · 11-01-2017 07:52PM

Bambi985 wrote: »

I'd know more families where the son can do no wrong tbh, is mollycoddled by his mammy while the housework and any caring duties are left on his sisters' shoulders and he's the apple of everyone's eye in a general sense.

Or families where if there was a spare chop or slice of meat the son would get it before the daughter.

RabbleRouser2k · 11-01-2017 08:22PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Or families where if there was a spare chop or slice of meat the son would get it before the daughter.

Oh yeah, I know that too. A friend told me about someone she knows who's like 'cereal!' and they bring it to him, in bed-but if the sister said the same thing...yeah, she'd get nothing.
And its not like special occassions, where he has the flu, or is sick in bed (ya know, times where you get a pass to get special treatment) it's pretty much every day.

If I tried that...yeah, I'd be politely told where to go...permanently.

On the other hand, I know girls who cannot even wash a mug or a cup-they were molly coddled while the boys were treated like crud.
It's sad and annoying-I honestly thinking putting either kid on a pedestal screws em up.

_Jamie_ · 11-01-2017 10:01PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In fairness I had to laugh when I read about that guy that cut off his wife's clitoris and labia and then put them in a garbage disposal right after he found out she had been cheating on him. Yes!

........is something you would never hear said but yet for some reason Sharon O thought it was hilarious.

Sharon Osbourne is a classless bitch, what do you expect? In that interview, though I don't think it's shown in any available clips, Sara Gilbert points out the sexism of the comments some of the other woman make on the topic.

mzungu · 11-01-2017 10:15PM

py2006 wrote: »

Skip to 5:10 for the 'apology'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ

Jesus. It takes a sick mind to find mutilation funny.

JRant · 11-01-2017 10:46PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Some really interesting points made in the last few pages.

Take the egs raised of war or maritime disasters. Sure men are bettered suited to fighting on the front line or lowering lifeboats because of their physical superiority to women but their lives are expendable.

Fertile women are more important to the continuation of our race. We're biologically programmed to think this way. As a man I fully accept this reality.

It is a really counterintuitive idea but according to research we have twice as many female ancestors than male.

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/?_r=0

givyjoe · 12-01-2017 09:59AM

ivytwine wrote: »

Or families where if there was a spare chop or slice of meat the son would get it before the daughter.

We do need more calories per day though ::pac::pac:

hatrickpatrick · 12-01-2017 05:37PM

Honest and probably highly controversial question here but I'll go ahead anyway: Do you think that if, say, an Asian child was raised with the mantra "whites first" any time anything came up that involved queuing or any sort of pecking order, that it wouldn't damage them psychologically - that at least some of them wouldn't go through their childhood wondering why society considered them second class just because they were Asian?

mzungu · 12-01-2017 06:54PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Honest and probably highly controversial question here but I'll go ahead anyway: Do you think that if, say, an Asian child was raised with the mantra "whites first" any time anything came up that involved queuing or any sort of pecking order, that it wouldn't damage them psychologically - that at least some of them wouldn't go through their childhood wondering why society considered them second class just because they were Asian?

In the Asian analogy, is it a millionaire tycoon from Macau holding open the door for Joe "blue-collar" Bloggs? Or is a quite well off middle class banker from Taipei opening the door for a less well off factory worker? If society offers more advantages and rights to the Asian, then affording a courtesy to a white person would most likely not bother them.

Chivalry was based on old ideas of the "damsel in distress" that the likes of the suffragettes wanted to dismantle. Even though it was "ladies first" back in those days, in most unions the man was always in the position of power. So, if anything I would imagine chivalry would have had more of a negative effect on the woman than the man. Most men would not have felt like second class citizens in comparison to women back then, although they would both have been second class citizens compared to the small elite of rich and powerful in society.

So, lets say if boys today were being taught chivalry, it would have more of a negative effect on the girls because it perpetuates the "helpless woman" myth of the days of yore. I'm still not seeing how even the chivalry of old could have been detrimental to a mans psychological wellbeing.

Thankfully, chivalry today simply equates to courtesy that is afforded to both men and women, and is free (mostly) of any negative stereotypes.

hatrickpatrick · 13-01-2017 10:20AM

mzungu wrote: »

In the Asian analogy, is it a millionaire tycoon from Macau holding open the door for Joe "blue-collar" Bloggs? Or is a quite well off middle class banker from Taipei opening the door for a less well off factory worker? If society offers more advantages and rights to the Asian, then affording a courtesy to a white person would most likely not bother them.

Chivalry was based on old ideas of the "damsel in distress" that the likes of the suffragettes wanted to dismantle. Even though it was "ladies first" back in those days, in most unions the man was always in the position of power. So, if anything I would imagine chivalry would have had more of a negative effect on the woman than the man. Most men would not have felt like second class citizens in comparison to women back then, although they would both have been second class citizens compared to the small elite of rich and powerful in society.

So, lets say if boys today were being taught chivalry, it would have more of a negative effect on the girls because it perpetuates the "helpless woman" myth of the days of yore. I'm still not seeing how even the chivalry of old could have been detrimental to a mans psychological wellbeing.

Thankfully, chivalry today simply equates to courtesy that is afforded to both men and women, and is free (mostly) of any negative stereotypes.

We're talking about children here, not grown adults. Children don't generally see the deeper societal meaning behind something, not at three or four years old.

So again, two otherwise entirely equal kids, one Asian, one white, both three years old, and the Asian is brought up with "whites first" is a rule, without any context. Is anyone going to claim that this isn't going to cause some long lasting resentment?

Fair enough if you think it wouldn't, but personally I can't see how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Outlaw Pete · 13-01-2017 04:09PM

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Sharon Osbourne is a classless bitch, what do you expect?

Oh I know, I have experiences of that one long before the public at large have ever heard of her but that doesn't explain the laughter of the audience and it's not the first time such things have been discussed on panel shows chaired by women where there was a sense that the guy deserved it. As can be seen from the second clip I posted where Lorena Bobbitt got a standing ovation before she even spoke.

In that interview, though I don't think it's shown in any available clips, Sara Gilbert points out the sexism of the comments some of the other woman make on the topic.

Yeah, that's true, and we should clone Sara she seems sound but listen (at 4m 28s) to the audience reaction to her saying that. Stone cold silence.

Then Sharon makes another joke and hilarity ensures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ

mzungu · 13-01-2017 09:38PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We're talking about children here, not grown adults. Children don't generally see the deeper societal meaning behind something, not at three or four years old.

So again, two otherwise entirely equal kids, one Asian, one white, both three years old, and the Asian is brought up with "whites first" is a rule, without any context. Is anyone going to claim that this isn't going to cause some long lasting resentment?

Fair enough if you think it wouldn't, but personally I can't see how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Presumably the Asian child would be brought up to let his elders go first too. So, using your example, would this mean that extending that courtesy to grandparents (or the elderly in general) would cause lasting resentment too? Bearing in mind the child would have no context for the "respect your elders" mantra either.

I would be interested to know how you believe such resentment would manifest itself? Is it something that will just irk at a man, or will he have a lifelong inferiority complex, will he be more likely to develop unhealthy attitudes towards women etc?

Other than articles that outline the difficulty of online dating for men in the post-chivalry era, I have found zilch on Google that referred to chivalry having a negative impact on men/boys.

RabbleRouser2k · 14-01-2017 01:27AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh I know, I have experiences of that one long before the public at large have ever heard of her but that doesn't explain the laughter of the audience and it's not the first time such things have been discussed on panel shows chaired by women where there was a sense that the guy deserved it. As can be seen from the second clip I posted where Lorena Bobbitt got a standing ovation before she even spoke.

Yeah, that's true, and we should clone Sara she seems sound but listen (at 4m 28s) to the audience reaction to her saying that. Stone cold silence.

Then Sharon makes another joke and hilarity ensures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ

Honestly, those shows generally speaking seek out the lowest common denominator for audiences-and sometimes they hire people who's job it is to laugh. (Yep, it's a trick from sitcoms-laughter is, genuinely, contagious. No matter how hard you try, generally speaking, people will laugh. Professional laughers are a well paying gig.)

These shows, generally speaking, are not a valid measure of most women-many would be just as horrified at Sharon Osbourne as we would.
That said, it's long been known that Sharon has no class whatsoever. Classless is the nicest thing I could say about her, tbh.
She manufactures drama, acts completely entitled, plays the victim, and yet is just horrific.
I instantly turn off the TV when I see her face on it.

Was reading about Nicola McClean and her 'I tried to get pregnant without telling husband (her then boyfriend)' like, dear God, that's just sick.
But it just shows a disturbing mentality, tbh.

Saw this old article from 'Una'...a response to an Oliver Callan article where she takes his somewhat harsh straight talking article, and misses the point.

https://medium.com/@UnaMullally/dear-oliver-callan-82312fb2c375#.p8nmlutjt

I’m not sure what this means… but when the marriage bar was lifted (thank to feminism) many of those people now are grannies. I think feminism was there for them.

The marriage bar was lifted by three people, Maureen Cronin (its well documented, so not revealing anything new here) a teacher who had gotten married and chose to continue to work, without pay, in order to work. She loved her job. Her husband, who supported her, and the then Bishop of the Limerick. She was not affiliated with feminism, she just liked her job. She even condescends herself in the next line with 'I think' whereas before, she flat out knew.

She also has a word for sexism within the gay community-the 'gaytriarchy'... Dear God, remember when the 'cutting out their own tongues' feminists in The World according to Garp were seen as exaggerated? They were even founded on the events of a 'feminist icon' who raped a man in order to conceive. I'm not so sure folks would get the satire about it now-some would look at it like 'good idea'.

While I disagreed with Christopher Hitchens on spiritual matters, he was often incredibly quick to call out people on their hypocrisy. When one guy joked 'my son cried more at his first haircut then he did at his bris and circumcision' and the audience giggled-Hitchens shot back 'would you laugh so hard if a similar 'my daugther cried more at her first haircut then she did when her clitoris was cut off with a rock''?.
Imagine his reaction to the 'i planned to get pregnant without telling my husband'.

hatrickpatrick · 14-01-2017 11:51AM

mzungu wrote: »

Presumably the Asian child would be brought up to let his elders go first too. So, using your example, would this mean that extending that courtesy to grandparents (or the elderly in general) would cause lasting resentment too? Bearing in mind the child would have no context for the "respect your elders" mantra either.

But there you go - older family members have, in our society, a natural authority over younger ones, and this is instilled into everyone from a young age. So in fact, you're proving my point - if the two are the same, then being taught that girls go first as well instills the idea that as well as older people having a natural authority over younger people, girls have a natural authority over boys and are higher in the societal pecking order - all other factors being equal.

I would be interested to know how you believe such resentment would manifest itself? Is it something that will just irk at a man, or will he have a lifelong inferiority complex, will he be more likely to develop unhealthy attitudes towards women etc?

I can only speak for myself, but for me it caused profound resentment and a feeling that as a boy, I just mattered less. It didn't matter as much if someone physically hurt me, and girls were just to be treated like superiors just because they were girls. Messed me up for years. I don't mind admitting this now because I'm well over it, but I worry about other young lads having to go through this, particularly now in a world which is far more openly hostile to males in general.

Other than articles that outline the difficulty of online dating for men in the post-chivalry era, I have found zilch on Google that referred to chivalry having a negative impact on men/boys.

My experiences are purely anecdotal, but if you look at the rising number of guys subscribing to things like the MRM and in worst cases MGTOW etc, I think it's pretty obvious that there's a lot of resentment out there.

How are you supposed to justify or reconcile telling a child "men and women are equal and should be treated equally" but also that "women should always be allowed to go before men through doors, etc"? There's a fundamental contradiction there.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments